The distinction in the article is not devices vs. services but vertical vs. horizontal. Tesla sells services, but those services are either vertically integrated with their cars (e.g. they don't repair non-Tesla vehicles) or have strategic value for their primary business (e.g. making superchargers compatible with non-Teslas expands the supply of EV charging stations generally, which is good for Tesla owners).
Yeah, I thought that when I wrote it. The same is somewhat true of Equal Exchange (ie, presumably their advocacy is intended to drive market expansion).
Same situation. Those are all examples of vertically integrated businesses (or alternatively, different components of a single output).
A university sells education. Classrooms, dorms, teachers, etc. are all part of the same 'supply chain' for education.
A trial lawyers sells legal services. Research, evidence, appearing in court, and so forth are just incident to the basic legal service provided.
A restaurant sells a 'dining experience'. The food, wait service, and so forth are all part of that same experience.
What OP means by a company that has both horizontal and vertical businesses is a company offering something as a standalone revenue-generating output (the "horizontal" business) and something else that incorporates that standalone output as part of another output (the "vertical" business).
This would apply, for instance, to a fast food company that not only sold hamburgers via its chain of fast food restaurants (vertical) but also supplied those same hamburgers to other, possibly competing competing fast food restaurants as a separate business (horizontal).
